Not at all, your post is well reasoned and productive. Plus, it is an open forum.
👍
Well, thank you. I always appreciate a good discussion
I don't really know what GT's strengths are; I think it depends on the player. For me, the physics and the cars just about do it - Ronda and the course creator would top it off, and sounds will be amazing.
I would agree that the question is somewhat subjective, but looking at Gran Turismo and the games that copied its formula
(more or less to the T), I'd say that you're pretty much spot on: Realistic physics are rare, especially on consoles and a huge roster of licensed cars is, as well. It's what drew me into the GT franchise in the first place. Now, do I still consider the car list to be a strength of GT's? Partially. The two-tiered approach, to me, isn't a plus.
You see, I am, for example, very partial to the KPGC110 Skyline GT-R, the Kenmeri Skyline, available in GT5 and 6 - which is great, as it's not a car that's featured in a lot of other games. It's a standard car and, as such, would likely be unavailable if one was to cut the standard cars - However, given that PD has the standard cars as a fallback, I'm also thinking it unlikely that it'll receive the premium treatment any time soon. Do I prefer having a standard version over not having it in the game, ever? Might be. As I see it, the question is more along the lines of "am I happy with it being a standard or am I of the opinion that PD should find a way to include it without turning it into a recycled, second-rate asset?" In which case I'd say that I'd rather have PD find a better solution, even though it might require them to rethink their approach.
I dislike the notion that we've got to either accept the standard cars as they are or lose them alltogether.
Think about this: was GT3 as groundbreaking as GT1 was? What racing game has been? Is it the same kind of game?
That's possibly a huge conversation, and I think the quality comments have arisen from the Standards issue in this case.
GT3 was not quite as groundbreaking as GT1, in that GT1 is the very foundation of the franchise. GT3 was, however, a start with a clean slate and very much state of the art - which is what GT5 should have been
(in my opinion) as well, with GT6 expanding on that - as GT2 did after GT1 and GT4 did after GT3. Instead, we've got GT5 and GT6, neither of which started with a clean slate and both of which are dragging assets with themselves that are, by now, close to fifteen years old, in some cases.
PD's decision with the Standards is one of aesthetics; trying to extend that to other areas of the game which aren't aesthetic might not work so well.
First of, I'd say that the standard cars aren't purely aesthetic; not having a modeled interior is, to me, very much a thing of functionality. That aside, it's not the standard cars themselves that I'm relating directly to other areas of the game. I'm just seeing a game developer who's content with using assets that are a decade old. It's glaringly obvious with the visual assets, the car models. It's also obvious with quite a lot of the sound samples. Would I put it past such a game developer to stick to decade old AI or other less visible things?
Of course not. In fact, I'd assume that such a game developer would be even more likely to use recycled assets when they're not as easy to spot.
That's what links the standard cars to other, non-aesthetic areas of the game, in my opinion.
I don't know that outsourcing is the silver bullet many hail it to be. PD have a long term plan; outsourcing is potentially a short-term cover-up that will require revisiting later on. This long term planning is what, for me, defines the GT mentality since GT5. It's looking like that will bear fruit only on the next console, though, depending on how the GT6 updates play out.
That so-called "long-term planning", or future proofing, is what caused the situation at hand in the first place. It's something I'm not quite happy with.
If the whole standard car deal taught us one thing, it's that visual assets in video games typically don't age well. Moore's law has proven to be pretty accurate, processing power doubles every 18 month, roughly. The hardware PD is now working with limits them severly compared to what's going to be possible in another seven or eight years. I simply perceive it as a waste of time and ressources to create assets now that could
potentially be suitable for upcoming hardware. A lot of additional work has to be dedicated to doing so, only to get to a quality level that's largely useless now and could be far easier achieved in the future by using more powerful hardware, rendering and scanning software and so on.
I'm fairly confident in saying that the attempt to future proof a video game's assets is nigh on impossible, given the rate at which the industry is developing. Which is why you don't see major companies doing that. You'll see some recycled stuff in sequels that follow each other closely; but technology doesn't move on fast enough to cause a lot of trouble in those cases. Which, then, leads me to the impression that the notion of creating car models for long-term use is a rather naive one.
I'm not convinced the Standards will stay entirely as we know them for GT7. Perhaps reserve judgment on that front until we know more.
There might be substantial differences between the current standard cars and what's going to be in GT7, sure. Given the development on the standard car front from GT5 to GT6, I'm doubtful at best, though. Besides, the whole point of the standard cars is to have the large car list without having to put a lot of work into the cars, right? Putting a lot of work into brushing the standard cars up would go against that.
As for the investment comment, I doubt developers think like that; publishers, on the other hand...
Equally, if there were a real issue, Sony would apply pressure.
PD's a first party studio, though, and Kazunori is SCE's vice president. Publisher and developer are heavily intertwined in this case.
So, how does having the standards (or not) impact sound, AI, events, tracks etc.? Even customisation is only affected in certain ways, i.e. changing visual body parts only.
See above
How can PD do this to us? How can a studio that made those outstanding games for PS1 & PS2 (just look at GT3, a 60fps game with those graphics in 2001!!!), put these ugly standard cars & tracks in a PS3 game and maybe PS4 in future? I missed that PD...
You think that's a clever dig, and it says everything about your irrational emotional viewpoint. I like cars, end of. GT allows me to experience some cars on a level I appreciate. I'm sorry that it doesn't cut it for you, too bad. Try a Fender.
Not that I've held back with my criticism in that regard... 
